Dismissed

Chanchal @ Chandraketu v. State of U.P. and Another

Allahabad HC15 Jun 2021ABAIL/10181/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Court rejected a Criminal Misc. Anticipatory Bail application under S. 438 Cr.P.C. filed by an Army serving individual accused of offences under Sections 307, 324, 325 IPC. The Court held that the delay of nine years in appearing before the trial court and lack of documentary evidence regarding duty status precluded exercising discretion in his favour, leaving the matter open for regular bail.

What the court decided

AI extract

Chanchal @ Chandraketu Vs State of U.P. and Another — Anticipatory Bail | Allahabad HC (2021)

¶1

Court No. - 38

¶2

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION U/S 438 CR.P.C. No. - 10181 of 2021

¶3

Applicant :- Chanchal @ Chandraketu Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another Counsel for Applicant :- Rajesh Kumar Pandey Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.,Kumar Dhananjay

¶4

Hon'ble Saumitra Dayal Singh,J.

¶5

Heard Sri Rajesh Kumar Pandey, learned counsel for the applicant and Sri Kumar Dhananjay, learned counsel for the informant. Learned AGA has not connected despite the link having been sent.

¶6

This anticipatory bail application has been filed on behalf of the applicant - Chanchal @ Chandraketu , seeking anticipatory bail in Case Crime No.313 of 2012, under Sections -307, 324, 325, 452, 147, 354 I.P.C., Police Station -Bhojpur, District -Ghaziabad , during pendency of trial.

¶7

Submission of learned counsel for the applicant is that the applicant is serving in the Indian Army and that he has been falsely implicated owing to pre-existing village rivalries. No such incident had taken place, and in any case, the applicant was not involved in any such incident. There is no firearm injury. On the other hand, Sri Kumar Dhananjay, learned counsel for the informant has pointed out that the FIR was of the date 15.09.2012. The applicant was summoned under Section 319 Cr.P.C. by the learned trial court in the year 2016. The applicant has never appeared before the learned court below. Also, no interim protection had been granted to the applicant in the revision filed by him to challenge his summoning under Section 319 Cr.P.C. Therefore, no discretion may be exercised in favour of such a person who has avoided law for almost nine years.

¶8

Having heard learned counsel for the parties and having perused the record, inasmuch as, the FIR is of the year 2012 and the summoning order of the learned court below is of the year 2016, and further since there is no documentary evidence shown to exist of the applicant being on duty on the date of the incident, there is no room to exercise any discretion in favour of the applicant.

¶9

Accordingly, the present application is rejected , leaving it open to the applicant to apply for regular bail which application, when filed, may be heard and decided on it's own merit, without being prejudiced by any observations made in this order.

¶10

Order Date :- 15.6.2021 S.Chaurasia

Chanchal @ Chandraketu v. State of U.P. and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What the court decided

Chanchal @ Chandraketu v. State of U.P. and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Akeel Vs State of U.P. and Another

Sandhya Devi and Another Vs State of U.P.

Namazuddin Vs State of U.P. and Another

Parvej and Another Vs State of U.P.

Santosh Dixit and Another Vs State of U.P. and Another

Salman Vs State of U.P.